User talk:Kingofgameshows800/Archives/Daniel Benfield
My Edits Why have you reverted my edits? All of my edits were either to add info, correct it, move the show intros to a section so the article isn't top-heavy, or make the thing readable by adding punctuation or removing Engrish or dopey descriptions. Shopper's Bazaar, Split Second (1), Second Chance, I Predict, Monday Night Quarterback, Mindreaders, The Price is Right, Family Feud, Match Game, Wheel of Fortune (2) – all of these are articles I've edited to be slightly more professional and factually correct, edits which you have reverted without ever stating a reason for doing so. As such, I'd like to know why you're doing such things. -Daniel Benfield (talk) 05:08, September 8, 2012 (UTC) Editing Wars If I may, I'd like to make my stance clear: I've been editing Wikis for many years, so I know what does and doesn't make good formatting and presentation style...at least to an extent. My edits have generally been to make things not look so sloppy (or, dare I say it, dopey-sounding) by fixing tense, removing unnecessary capitalization, etc. Reverting edits that add or clarify information is bad enough, but reverting edits and re-inserting certain changes looks even worse. The first time I brought this up, you said "I understand what you were doing, but I just don't like it. I liked it the way it was. I apologize in advance but I just don't like it." You went on to mention Wikipedia, then said "But here (though good accurate info & facts are required) we can be as loose as we want" So? The Cutting Room Floor and TV Tropes are also loose, but they have standards of quality; same goes for the Wheel History Wiki, partly because there's evidence that someone at the show has been referencing it for clip selection (2/20/13's retro bonus puzzle being the clearest sign). Wikipedia has strict standards because they strive for excellence as an internet encyclopedia, and hence need such rules to keep the overall quality as high as possible. Besides all that, this is a Wiki. By definition, it means that anybody can edit and improve it. As I said, what I've been doing since I got here was try to improve things, but you stated the only reason you revert my edits is because "I don't like it. I liked it the way it was before." No reasoning, no explanations, just...nothing. And I saw your message: "I did what I did because this major or minor overhauling scares me to death. Yes you have every right as an editor to... well edit. But when things like this come my way... OOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHH!" That was part of it, quoted to accentuate what I'm saying – if someone makes a big change to a page, look over said changes before reverting it wholesale and see whether you actually need to do so. I composed most of this (thanks to your using "WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS?!" to me in an edit summary) before seeing your post, and while I dulled down some sharp edges my points remain the same. -Daniel Benfield (talk) 19:55, March 14, 2013 (UTC) * Don't get me wrong – I don't hate this Wiki, and in fact I respect the time and effort it took to create all these pages and pictures plus find links (I'd be an idiot to do otherwise). It's just that there's a difference between "Here's a Wiki full of game show info." and "Here's a Wiki full of game show info that's not only very accurate but has proper spelling, punctuation, capitalization, etc." Sure, the former will get some attention, but the latter will get considerably more due to its level of "polish" (as it were). ** Also, I suggest you reply to my message here rather than my talk page; it's a lot easier to follow discussions that way. :) -Daniel Benfield (talk) 20:08, March 14, 2013 (UTC) Suggestion Actually, here's another idea: message archives, rather than "Delete newer messages." What you did pretty much ignored what I said (in my last message) and removed it. -Daniel Benfield (talk) 20:08, March 14, 2013 (UTC) *What do you think about this?--William Henry Sydnor Jr. (talk) 20:16, March 14, 2013 (UTC) * It preserves the messages, sure, but why leave your older messages on your main talk page? That's where your newer messages should be: out there, not in here. :) -Daniel Benfield (talk) 20:35, March 14, 2013 (UTC) * Only because of all the great conversations me & Neubauer had when I first got here. Neubauer was & is my mentor and always will be.--William Henry Sydnor Jr. (talk) 20:53, March 14, 2013 (UTC) * Fair enough. It's your talk page, after all. :) -Daniel Benfield (talk) 20:57, March 14, 2013 (UTC) ---- Daniel Benfield, if your looking at this, I'm glad our editing conflicts are pretty rare. You should've seen what I've been through the night of Sunday, August 4, 2013. And i'm also glad to have you as one of my acquaintances.